Writ Petition No. 4067 of 2024 · Bombay High Court
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:19820 946.4067.2024.wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4067 OF 2024 … PETITIONER Bansi s/o. Tatyaram Patole Age: 65 years, Occ: Agri., Residing at Lohgaon, Tq. Newasa, Dist: Ahmednagar ...VERSUS... Prabhudhar Bhimraj Patole Age: 45 years, Occu: Agri, Residing at Bhanashivara, Tal: Newasa, District: Ahmednagar Eknath Vitthal Patole Age: 75 years, Occu: Agri. Residing at: Lohgaon, Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar Arun Jagannath Patole Age: 47 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o. Lohgaon, Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar Tarabai Jagannath Patole Age: 65 years, Occu.: Agri. Residing at: Lohgaon, Tal. Nevasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. Raju s/o. Bhimraj Patole Age: 50 years, Occu: Agri. Vijay Bhimraj Patole Age: 46 years, Occu: Agri. Sunil Bhimraj Patole Age: 41 years, Occu.: Agri. All 5 to 7 are R/o. Bhosari, Sadgurunagar, Pune - Nasik Highway, Pune. Baby Sunil Bhakre Age: 48 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o. MIDC Nagapur, Ahmednagar-4141119 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. komal kamble Page 1 9. Shobha Pravin Bhakre Age: 38 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o. Bhosari, Sadgurunagar, Pune Nashik Highway, Pune 411039. 10. Ramchandra Rabhaji Patole, Age: 65 years, Occu.: Agri. 11. Machindra Rabhaji Patole. Age: 60 years, Occu.: Agri. 12. Sopan Rabhaji Patole, Age: 58 years, Occu.: Agri. All 10 to 12 R/o. Lohgaon, Tal. Nevasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 13. Harnabai Gajanan Shirsat, Age: 55 years, Occu.: Agri. Residing at Pimpri, Pune. 14. Janabai Babasaheb Shejhwal, Age: 53 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o. Kondhvad, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar- 413705. 15. Sharada Popat Bhingardive, Age: 45 years, Occu.: Agri. Residing at Shiral, Chinchodi, Tq. Pathardi, Dis. Ahmednagar 16. Muktabai Balaji @ Balasaheb Pawar, Age: 50 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o. Wakodi, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar 17. Sanjay Murlidhar Patole Age: 55 years, Occu.: Agri. 18. Nandu Murlidhar Patole Age: 53 years, Occu.: Agri. 19. Prakash Murlidhar Patole Age: 47 years, Occu.: Agri. 20. Saraswati Murlidhar Patole Age: 70 years, Occu.: Agri. All 17 to 20 are R/o. Lohgaon, Tq. Nevasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. komal kamble 946.4067.2024.wp Page 2 946.4067.2024.wp 21. Agnesh Devidas Kasbe Age: 45 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o. Thergaon, Tq. Mawal, Dist. Pune 411033. 22. Mangal Raju Pandit Age: 42 years Orchi Arti R/o. Deolali, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar 23. Shantabai Eknath Gaikwad Age: 45 years, Occu.: Agri. Residing at: Dehare, Tq. & Dist Ahmednagar. 24. Sindhu Tatyaram Patole Age: 63 years, Occu.: Agri. 25. Lata Charles Mirpagar Age: 58 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o. Khandobanagar, Shegaon, Dist: Shegaon- 414502. 26. Kanta Baburao Pawar Age: 56 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o. Donbosco, Savedi, Dist. Ahmednagar- 414003. 27. Meena Arun Bhakre Age: 54 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o. Nagapur, Ahmednagar-414111 28. Pushpa Andres Gaikwad Age: 52 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o. Nashik Jail Road, Ambedkarnagar, Dist. Nashik- 422101. 29. Martha Suresh Suryanarayan, Age: 50 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o. Bohelgaon, Ahmednagar- 414111 30. Bhaudas Tatyaram Patole Age: 46 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o. Lohgaon, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar 31. Chandrabhaga Tatyaram Patole Age: 75 years, Occu.: Agri. Residing at: Bhosari, Sadgurunagar, Pune Nashik Highway, komal kamble Page 3 946.4067.2024.wp 32. Anusayabai Bhimraj Patole (Since deceased, through her heirs) 32-A] Prabhudhar Bhimraj Patole Age: 45 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o. Bhanasahivara, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar 32-B] Raju Bhimraj Patole Age: 50 years, Occu.: Agri. 32-C] Vijay Bhimraj Patole Age: 46 years, Occu.: Agri. 32-D] Sunil Bhimraj Patole Age: 41 years, Occu.: Agri. All are R/o. Sadgurunagar, Bhosari, Pune 32-E] Baby Sunil Bhakre Age: 48 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o. MIDC Nagapur, Dist. Ahmednagar- 414111 32-F] Shobha Pravin Bhakre Age: 38 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o. Sadgurunar, Bhosari, Pune …RESPONDENTS _______________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
• Adv. S. C. Wakankar a/w Mr. R. H. Wagh, Advocate for the Petitioner • Mr. A. S. Wakoke, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 10 to 14, 15, 22, 24 to 29 • Mr. P. V. haudhari, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and 23 _______________________________________________________________ CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : JULY 24, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition is filed by defendant no. 19 in RCS No. 368 of 2018 challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Court allowing application filed by the defendant nos. 1, 15, 17 and 27 to 31 for transposition of their names as plaintiffs in the said civil suit. komal kamble Page 4 946.4067.2024.wp 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised contention that the learned Trial Court has erred in allowing the said application inasmuch as the application was filed under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “CPC”), which is not attracted, the defendants did not provide any cogent reason for seeking transposition and lastly that transposition of a defendant as a plaintiff can be allowed only in case, where the contingency provided under Order XXIII Rule 1A is attracted namely that the suit is likely to be withdrawn by the original plaintiff. 3. The suit is a suit for partition and separate possession. In such a suit the plaintiffs as well as the defendants are entitled to claim their respective shares in the suit property. In that sense, every party is a plaintiff and every party is a defendant in a suit for possession. 4. The power to order transposition flows from Order I Rule 10 of CPC as can be seen Order XXIII Rule 1 itself, which speaks for transposition under the said provision. Order XIII Rule 1A speaks of a peculiar contingency, where transposition should be allowed. It does not curtail the general power to order transposition, which flows from Order I Rule 10, that apart, even though arrayed as defendants, in law, the defendant nos. 1, 15, 17 and 27 to 31 are also plaintiffs in one sense, as the suit is a suit for partition and separate possession. komal kamble Page 5 946.4067.2024.wp 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute the contention in the application that the right claim by the plaintiff and the same defendant is on the same footing. 6. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 7.
Decision
Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.] komal kamble Page 6